Back
DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Bind S/o Late Ishwar Prasad – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This Petition has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of Special Leave to Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), District Janjgir-champa in Electricity Criminal Case No. 493/2015, whereby, the accused/Respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 135 (1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act of 2003’) for commission of theft of electricity.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.09.2015, when R.K. Acharya (CW-3), Executive Engineer, CSPDCL, Jangjir headed to village Nagpura with Assistant Lineman Ramji Pandit (CW-2) and Assistant Engineer Basant Som for inspection of electricity therein, they found that the accused/Respondent has committed theft of electricity by directly hooking the LT line in his agricultural premises. Hence, an inspection team has been constituted vide Ex.P-3 by R.K. Acharya (CW-3) and at the time of inspection of the said premises, his representative Fagu Singh Gond (not examined) was present and R.K. Acharya (CW-3) has given notice (Ex.P-7) for inspection and found that a 5 hp pump was used for directly hooking the LT line in an unauthorize
The main legal point established is that the prescribed period of limitation under Section 378(5) Cr.P.C. is a special law governing the appeal of private prosecutors, and the court does not have the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the application of limitation periods fo....
The court clarified that appeals by the State or Central Government are governed by a 90-day limitation period, and sufficient cause for delay must be demonstrated for condonation.
In appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should only intervene when there is compelling evidence of error in the trial's findings, reaffirming the presumption of innocence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the language of Section 378(5) of the CrPC did not expressly exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and thus, the court....
The presumption of innocence and the principles for appellate courts to review evidence in appeals against acquittal were central to the judgment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
